SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 21, 2014 21:24:43 GMT -5
So, how do you get them to pay? What's the plan? In a business wherein just watching the show is not beneficial to WWE and their future, how does one attempt to hook these people? If the answer is "You can't", then it just proves my point that they're insignificant and are not to be catered to, or taken into account on who should get opportunity. Simply being viewers is paying in a way. Raw's TV ratings are why they get such a fat TV contract. If the 700,000 Network subscribers were the only people watching Raw, Raw wouldn't exist. Except the TV deal is set in stone for several years. The Network is not. The Network is the priority. And watching a show, but not paying for it, is just that. WWE exists as an amalgam of several different yet important monetary facets. And right now, at this moment, TV is irrelevant. They won't and can't get any more or less ad revenue until the current deal expires. So it, as a business and creative measuring stick is moot at the moment. To give you an example, if WWE was a restaurant, and say it had a day once a week (every Monday) where they gave away free hamburgers in an attempt to drum up paid business, and a few thousand people showed up and ate them, but of those people, the vast majority did not ever actually come there an ever legit buy anything outright, would you even entertain catering your product to them, and what they like in any way whatsoever? What would be the impetus on pleasing them? You've discovered that despite them enjoying and consuming your free samples that they NEVER actually patronize your business. You'd be better served to actually pleasing those paid customers who actually keep your restaurant afloat with their tangible business.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 21, 2014 21:54:42 GMT -5
Right off of WWE's own income statement you can see that the revenue generated for PPV/Network has caught the revenue generated by the TV deal in the previous quarter. Analysts have also projected those numbers to surpass TV revenue for Q3 2014. As was stated you aren't going to be increasing that TV money for a while. That check is cashed and constant.
With those things in place. If you had a business like that and you wanted to increase revenue, would you focus on the customer base that spends no money in the hopes that you could increase you income a couple years down the line? WWE did that this year if you remember and it completely bit them in the ass when it came time to renew their TV deal.
Or you could cater to the people who actually spend money on the product. The people who pay for programming and attendance (network/ppv/live shows). That's where you can increase income. The TV exclusive viewers aren't going to get you anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 22:10:21 GMT -5
Simply being viewers is paying in a way. Raw's TV ratings are why they get such a fat TV contract. If the 700,000 Network subscribers were the only people watching Raw, Raw wouldn't exist. Except the TV deal is set in stone for several years. The Network is not. The Network is the priority. And watching a show, but not paying for it, is just that. WWE exists as an amalgam of several different yet important monetary facets. And right now, at this moment, TV is irrelevant. They won't and can't get any more or less ad revenue until the current deal expires. So it, as a business and creative measuring stick is moot at the moment. To give you an example, if WWE was a restaurant, and say it had a day once a week (every Monday) where they gave away free hamburgers in an attempt to drum up paid business, and a few thousand people showed up and ate them, but of those people, the vast majority did not ever actually come there an ever legit buy anything outright, would you even entertain catering your product to them, and what they like in any way whatsoever? What would be the impetus on pleasing them? You've discovered that despite them enjoying and consuming your free samples that they NEVER actually patronize your business. You'd be better served to actually pleasing those paid customers who actually keep your restaurant afloat with their tangible business. Sure, I jumped into this out of context. I get that the Network is the priority right now, and those are the viewers that should be catered to, however you categorize them. But, if you look at Raw as a television show, as they have to, and agree Raw is their best, most important platform in terms of selling that Network and carries their company's storylines all year long, viewership numbers for it are extremely important to the viability of the company. Going by your restaurant example, the large majority of television shows would be restaurants giving away food. Numbers = interest = money, but the money is coming from advertisers and television networks instead of directly from the consumer. WWE is in a weird position where they're trying to sell a big show every month the audience has to pay for, so they have to balance to keep the casuals and please the hardcores, it's two different ways of marketing and they clash all the time. But, again, they have to look at Raw as a telelvision show, because it is their bread and butter. If the Network falls out, PPV business is cannibalized, they've still got 3 hours in prime time on a big-time cable network. All that said, I really don't see catering to Network subscribers hurting overall viewership, and if it does it won't be anything that will get them cancelled.
|
|
Doctor Of Style
King Koopa
Well, first they love me, and then they don't. Sometimes they do it, and sometimes they won't.
Posts: 12,104
|
Post by Doctor Of Style on Aug 21, 2014 22:18:12 GMT -5
Simply being viewers is paying in a way. Raw's TV ratings are why they get such a fat TV contract. If the 700,000 Network subscribers were the only people watching Raw, Raw wouldn't exist. Except the TV deal is set in stone for several years. The Network is not. The Network is the priority. And watching a show, but not paying for it, is just that. WWE exists as an amalgam of several different yet important monetary facets. And right now, at this moment, TV is irrelevant. They won't and can't get any more or less ad revenue until the current deal expires. So it, as a business and creative measuring stick is moot at the moment. To give you an example, if WWE was a restaurant, and say it had a day once a week (every Monday) where they gave away free hamburgers in an attempt to drum up paid business, and a few thousand people showed up and ate them, but of those people, the vast majority did not ever actually come there an ever legit buy anything outright, would you even entertain catering your product to them, and what they like in any way whatsoever? What would be the impetus on pleasing them? You've discovered that despite them enjoying and consuming your free samples that they NEVER actually patronize your business. You'd be better served to actually pleasing those paid customers who actually keep your restaurant afloat with their tangible business. TV contract and ad rates may be locked in, but they could still get some corporate sponsorship money. I'd say some of those paying customers are just as automatic as the freeloaders. Why cater to the whims of someone who will pay to show up whether they like the product or not? Why not put the strap on Barry Horowitz if they'll pay for tickets anyway and just chant their disapproval? The tricky part is trying to get those people on the fence to part with their money. With the hi-def home experience so good and a weak economy, it'll be even harder to try to put asses in seats. Merchandise is a consideration too.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 21, 2014 23:08:43 GMT -5
Except the TV deal is set in stone for several years. The Network is not. The Network is the priority. And watching a show, but not paying for it, is just that. WWE exists as an amalgam of several different yet important monetary facets. And right now, at this moment, TV is irrelevant. They won't and can't get any more or less ad revenue until the current deal expires. So it, as a business and creative measuring stick is moot at the moment. To give you an example, if WWE was a restaurant, and say it had a day once a week (every Monday) where they gave away free hamburgers in an attempt to drum up paid business, and a few thousand people showed up and ate them, but of those people, the vast majority did not ever actually come there an ever legit buy anything outright, would you even entertain catering your product to them, and what they like in any way whatsoever? What would be the impetus on pleasing them? You've discovered that despite them enjoying and consuming your free samples that they NEVER actually patronize your business. You'd be better served to actually pleasing those paid customers who actually keep your restaurant afloat with their tangible business. TV contract and ad rates may be locked in, but they could still get some corporate sponsorship money. I'd say some of those paying customers are just as automatic as the freeloaders. Why cater to the whims of someone who will pay to show up whether they like the product or not? Why not put the strap on Barry Horowitz if they'll pay for tickets anyway and just chant their disapproval? The tricky part is trying to get those people on the fence to part with their money. With the hi-def home experience so good and a weak economy, it'll be even harder to try to put asses in seats. Merchandise is a consideration too. We'll know how locked in those hardcores truly are in a matter of weeks. Right now we don't know how unconditionally loyal they are. All we do know is that right now they are more monetarily significant than plain TV viewers. And if they don't re-up, it will be a DISASTER. Pleasing them is imperative. They are the baseline. And I agree completely with those on the fence. They are definitely needed, as are the freeloaders, to eventually make the Network financially profitable. However, I think it's absurd in today's current WWE landscape to justify pushing or not pushing guys based on static TV numbers. The monday night was are over. So Vince clinging to quarter hours as any sort of business barometer or push justifier is ridiculous. If say a Dean Ambrose gets hug pops and moves merch, (like say a CM Punk did) but doesn't set Nielsen rating records, WWE is imbecilic to cut him (or anyone with equaled momentum)off at the knees and go back to status quo. Using quarter hours as a baseline is flawed and archaic. They mean nothing to WWE's core business at the moment.
|
|
Doctor Of Style
King Koopa
Well, first they love me, and then they don't. Sometimes they do it, and sometimes they won't.
Posts: 12,104
|
Post by Doctor Of Style on Aug 22, 2014 0:11:38 GMT -5
TV contract and ad rates may be locked in, but they could still get some corporate sponsorship money. I'd say some of those paying customers are just as automatic as the freeloaders. Why cater to the whims of someone who will pay to show up whether they like the product or not? Why not put the strap on Barry Horowitz if they'll pay for tickets anyway and just chant their disapproval? The tricky part is trying to get those people on the fence to part with their money. With the hi-def home experience so good and a weak economy, it'll be even harder to try to put asses in seats. Merchandise is a consideration too. We'll know how locked in those hardcores truly are in a matter of weeks. Right now we don't know how unconditionally loyal they are. All we do know is that right now they are more monetarily significant than plain TV viewers. And if they don't re-up, it will be a DISASTER. Pleasing them is imperative. They are the baseline. And I agree completely with those on the fence. They are definitely needed, as are the freeloaders, to eventually make the Network financially profitable. However, I think it's absurd in today's current WWE landscape to justify pushing or not pushing guys based on static TV numbers. The monday night was are over. So Vince clinging to quarter hours as any sort of business barometer or push justifier is ridiculous. If say a Dean Ambrose gets hug pops and moves merch, (like say a CM Punk did) but doesn't set Nielsen rating records, WWE is imbecilic to cut him (or anyone with equaled momentum)off at the knees and go back to status quo. Using quarter hours as a baseline is flawed and archaic. They mean nothing to WWE's core business at the moment. I think TV numbers are of some use, if only to get an idea how many people are seeing the product. They're certainly not the be-all and the end-all of metrics to look at. Agreed on Punk, if you're over and move merch, you should get a shot.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 22, 2014 0:20:32 GMT -5
The bigger indicates of how someone does are (were?) PPV buys and ticket sales. They directly indicate a desire to pay to see something. TV might depend on what timeslot a match is or what's on the other side. Merch is a decent indicator but sometimes the design can help/hinder too much. But if people are buying tickets to see X headline or ordering to see the big A vs B match - that's the best indicator you have.
How it works with the Network, I have no idea. One positive that may come is longer-term booking as they won't have monthly PPV numbers to go by instead having to look at Network take-ups/retentions over every quarter and combine that with other factors to determine who works and who don't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2014 0:40:04 GMT -5
Judging pushes by small quarter hour shifts? Definitely stupid. It is important that WWE maintains their high overall viewership for Raw though. That's all I'm getting at.
|
|
gl83
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,813
|
Post by gl83 on Aug 25, 2014 9:53:01 GMT -5
Raw quarter-hour Breakdown:
|
|